ML19290A309
| ML19290A309 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1968 |
| From: | Bond J, Stratton R, Williams C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911060550 | |
| Download: ML19290A309 (10) | |
Text
'
~
S-d.
f.V UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COIGIISSION In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Docket No. 50-289 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 APPLICANT'S PROPOSED FDIDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (IN THE FORM OF A PROPOSED INITIAL DECISION)
Preliminary Statement 1.
This proceeding involves the application of Metro-politan Edison Company (Applicant), dated May 1, 1967, and ten subsequent amendments thereto (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the application") for a provisional construction permit to construct a pressurized water reactor, designed to operate initially at core power levels up to 2452 megawatts (thermal), to be located at the Applicant's Three Mile Island Nuclear Station in Londonderry Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
2.
The application was reviewed oy the regulatory staff (staff) of the Atomic Energy Commission (Commission) and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) both of which concluded that the proposed facility can be constructed at the proposed site with-out undue risk to the health and safety of the public. 1/
1555 187
-1/
Safety Evaluation by the Division of Reactor Licensing, U. S.
Atomic Energy Commission, February 5,1968 (Staff Safety Eval-uation),pp. 57-58, 61.
7911060 7 6 0 v
s -
3 In accordance with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), and the amended notice of hearing, a hearing was held before this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) in Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, on April 10-11, 1968, to consider whether a provisional construction permit should be issued. 2/
On April 26, 1968, the staff filed under affidavit supplemental testimony with the Board, the Applicant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and other interested persons pursuant to an agreement reached during the hearing, which also provided for a ten-day period for the Board, the parties, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and other interested persons to request that the hearing be reconvened to consider the staff's supplemental testimony.
On April 29, 1968, th,e Applicant filed a statement, under affidavit, responding to certain matters in the staff's supplemental testimony.
No requests to reconvene the hearing were received or made and, pursuant to the agreement reached during the hearing, the record was closed upon conclusion of the ten-day period.
4.
The parties to the proceeding were the Applicant and the staff.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was represented and participated in the proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 6 2.715(c) of the Commission's " Rules of Practice."
Limited appearances were made by the Chairman of the Dauphin County Board of Commissioners and by the Middletown Area Association of the Harrisburg Area Chamber of Commerce.
1555 188 2/
A Notice of Hearing was published on January 27, 1968 (33 F.R. 1082)
Subsequently, on motion of the Applicant, the prehearing conference and the hearing were rescheduled by Order and Notice of the Board published on February 16,1968 (33 F.R. 3084) to March 29, 1968, and April 10, 1968 e
A prehearing conference was heldonMarch29,196$soectively.ht Middletown, Pennsylvania.
Findings of Fact 5
The Applicant is an electric utility corporation that is soundly financed and has adequate financial resources at its command.
It plans to finance the cost of construction of the pro-posed facility in the same manner as it finances other plants, namely, through the internal generation of funds, the issuance and sale of securities and contributions from the parent company, General Public Utilities Corporation (GPU).3./
6.
The Applicant has gained experience in the construction and operation of a nuclear powered generating station as a result of its participation in the construction and operation of the Saxton Nuclear Generating Station.
Babcock & Wilcox Company, which will design and supply the nuclear steam supply system, Gilbert Associates, the architect engineers, and United Engineers and Constructors, which will supervise and coordinate the construction of the plant, have all had considerable experience in the design and/or construction of nuclear projects.S/
7 The site of the proposed Three Mile Island Nuclear Station is in Londonderry Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, about 10 miles southeast of Harrisburg on Three Mile Island in the Susquehanna River above the York Haven Dam.
The exclusion area, 1555 189
-3/
Testimony of Raymond E. Werts; Financial Qualifications of Metropolitan Edison Company, March 19, 1968, p. 3; Testimony of Charles A. Lovejoy, p. 2.
4/
Applicant's Summary Description of Application for Reactor Construction Permit and Operating License, March 19, 1968 (Applicant's Summary Descriptien), pp. 28-32; Staff Safety Evaluation, pp.54-55
. owned entirely by Applicant, has a minimum radius of 2,000 feet.
The low population distance is specified as 2 miles and excludes the community of Middletown which has a population of about 12,000.
The nearest population center with a population of greater than 25,000 begins about seven miles away and consists of the towns of Steelton and Harrisburg.E/
The plant design will take into account the possibility of credible earthquakes, floods, and severe meteoro-logical conditions as well as local hydrological and ground water conditions.$[
8.
The facility will be located about 2.5 miles south-east of the Olmsted State Airport.
Although the probability of an aircraft incident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station is ex-tremely remote, che principal structures of the stction will be designed to withstand a significant range of aircraft strike loadings, including such secondary effects as missiles, fire, pressure and temperature.1/
9 The design of the major systems and components of the proposed facility, including the emergency core cooling systems and the containment structure, which bear significantly on the accept-ability of the facility at the proposed site under the site criteria 5[
Applicant's Summary Description, p. 4; Staff Safety Evaluation, p.3
$/
Applicant's Summary Description, pp. 5-8; Staff Safety Evaluatien, pp. 5-6.
7/
Supplement 1 to Applicant's Summary Description, April 8, 1968,
~
- p. 2; Addendum to Staff Safety Evaluation, April 2b, 1968, pp. 5-8.
1555 190
_5_
guidelines identified in 10 CFR Part 100 of the Commission's regu-lations, have been analyzed and evaluated by Applicant and the staff at the core power level of 2535 megawatts (thermal) which is the ultimate reactor power level anticipated by the Applicant.8_/
10.
The nuclear steam supply system consists of a light water moderated and cooled pressurized water reactor (PWR) which transfers heat to two once-through steam generators from which steam passes to the turbine generator.
The reactor core is com-prised of 177 fuel assemblies containing low-enrichment uranium dioxide pellets within zircaloy tubes.Y Reactivity control will be accomplished by a combination of 69 control rod cluster assemblies and by liquid poison (boric acid) in the reactor coolant.10.,/
Upon trip, the 69 control rod assemblies fall into the core by gravity.ll./
Neutron flux level, high or low reactor system pressure, high coolant temperature, or low coolant flow can initiate a reactor trip'through the reactor protection instrumentation which de-energizes the mag-netic clutches on the control rods and scrams the reactor.l2_/
Exter-nal neutron detectors and 52 in-core detector assemblies will be provided to monitor neutron flux distributions.13.,/
8,/
Applicant's Summary Description, p. 2; Staff Safety Evaluation, p.1.
g Applicant's Summary Description, pp. 9-10; Staff Safety Evaluation,
- p. 7 10,/ Applicant's Summary Description, p. 10; Staff Safety Evaluation, p.7
-11/ Transcript of Hearing pp. 331-334; Applicant's Summary Description,
- p. 10; Staff Safety Evaluation, p. 15 12_/ Applicant's Summary Description, p.
16; Staff Safety Evaluation, p.
M / Staff Safety Evaluation, p. 8.
1555 191 11.
The proposed plant incorporates numerous systems, components, and features for the protection of plant personnel and the public.
An important safety feature of the plant is the con-tainment structure which will completely enclose the reactor and the primary coolant system.
The containment consists of a steel-lined, prestressed concrete cylinder with a shallow domed roof and a flat foundation slab designed to withstand a containment pressure of 55 pounds per square inch. 1S/
The containment structure will have adequate capability for a suitable in-service surveillance program, the details of which have not yet been established, but which will be reviewed by the staff at the operating license stage.1E/
12.
Reduction of containment building pressure to assure containment integrity under accident conditions is provided by:
(a)
Containment spray pumps which take water initially from the borated water storage tank and then from the containment sump and deliver it to the containment atmosphere through redundant spray headers,15/ and (b)
Three emergency cooling units, each con-sisting of a fan and a tube cooler for transferring heat from the containment atmosphere to the reactor building emergency cooling system.12[
14/
Applicant's Summary Description, pp.12-13; Staff Safety Eval-uation, pp. 27, 33.
15/
Applicant's Summary Description, p. 14; Staff Safety Evaluation, p.
15/ Applicant's Summary Description, p. 15; Staff Safety Evaluation, p.
11/
Applicant's Summary Description, p. 15; Staff Safety Evaluation,;.
1555 192 In addition, chemicals are mixed with the containment spray water for iodine removal from the containment atmosphere.lS/
13.
The plant design provides protection against clad melting for the entire spectrum of reactor coolant system failures.
The protection is provided by the emergency core cooling system which consists of both passive flooding systems and pumping systems.
The passive flooding system consists of two pressurized core flooding tanks which automatically discharge borated water into the reactor vessel in the event that the reactor system pressure drops below 600 psi.
The pumping system consists of two completcly independent sub-systems.
Each sub-system contains both a high pressure and a low pressure injection pump.
Either sub-system, in conjunction with the core flooding tanks, is capable of protecting the core for any size leak up to and including the double-ended rupture of the largest reactor coolant pipe.
Either sub-system can supply coolant directly from the borated water storage tank or by recirculation from the Reactor Building sump through heat exchangers which cool it before it is returned to cool the core.12/
14.
The Applicant and the staff recognize that in order to develop the final design of the project, further information and data are needed.
Such additional data will be acquired from research and development projects and by evaluation of operating reactor ex-perience concerning the following items:22/
18/
Applicant's Summary Description, p. 16; Staff Safety Evaluation, p.h 19/
Applicant's Summary Description, pp. 14-15; Staff Safety Eval-uation, pp. 35-38.
20/
Applicant's Summary Description, pp. 25-28; Staff Safety Eval-uation, pp. 51-53.
1555 193
. (a)
Once-through steam generator; (b)
Control rod drive unit; (c)
In-core neutron detectors; (d)
Core thermal and hydraulic design; (e)
Emergency core cooling and core barrel check valves; (f)
Xenon oscillation control; and (g)
Use of sodium thiosulphate for iodine removal, 15.
The application contains a description of the site and the basis for its suitability, a detailed description of the proposed facility including those reactor systems and features which are essential to safety, an analysis of the safety features provided for in the facility design, and an evaluation of various postulated accidents and hazards involved in the operation of such a facility and the engineered safety features provided to limit their effect.
Additional testimony and documentary evidence relative to these matters is included in the evidentiary record.
Also included in the application is evidence of the financial qualifications of the Applicant and the technical qualifications of the Applicant, includ-ing those of its contractors, to design and construct the facility.
The staff's review of the application explains the consideration which was given by the staff to the important safety features of the proposed facility and the significance assigned to those systems and features important to the prevention and mitigation of accidents.
16.
The application and the proceeding thereon comply with the requirements of the Act and the Commission's regulations.
1555 194
s
_ 9_
There are no unresolved safety questions pertinent to the issu-ance of a provisional construction permit.
The proceeding was not a contested proceeding, as defined by 10 CFR 6 2.4(n).21/
17 The Board has given careful consideration to all of the documentary and oral evidence produced by the parties and to the report of the ACRS in this proceeding.
Based on our review of the entire record in this proceeding and the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, we conclude that the application and the ree d of the proceeding contain sufficient information, and the review of the application by the staff has been adequate to support (1) the findings proposed to be made by the Director of Regulation, and (2) the issuance of the provisional construction permit, as proposed by the Director of Regulation, as aet forth in the " Notice of Hearing on Application for Provisional Construction Permit," in the captioned matter.
18.
Pursuant to the Act and the Commission's regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Director of Regulation is authorized to issue a provisional construction permit to Metropolitan Edison Company substantially in the form of Appendix "A" to the " Notice of Hearing on Application for Provisional Construction Permit" in the captioned matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, in accordance with 10 CFR 9 2.760, 2.762, and 2.764 that this Initial Decision shall be effective immediately and shall constitute the final action of the 21/
Transcript of Hearing, pp. 167-168, 207-210.
1555 195
lo _
Commission forty-five (45) days after the date of issuance, subject to the review thereof and further decision by the Commission upon its own motion or upon exceptions filed pursuant to the cited rules.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARD Chairman, J. D. Bond, Esq.
Reuel C.
Stratton Dr. Clarke Williams Date:
1555 196